Is It Your First Day?

Finding a fantastic new scripted tv show in the latest batch of releases can be like searching for a narrative needle in an, occasionally mediocre, storytelling haystack. 

Here's my take on ten recent small screen debuts. The good news is, every now and again, you hit pay dirt. (On a side note, what does this saying even mean? Why dirt??). 

My Favourite So Far (drum roll please)…

1. MOCKINGBIRD LANE

Why Check It Out? Because it's from the producer of Pushing Up Daisies. Mockingbird Lane is fun, but don't get excited. The network passed on it, which means the most promising show of the season was cancelled before it even really began. 

What's It About? A ver-y loose retelling of The Munsters, which is why it has a different name (good call). The concept's been modernised to accommodate a more gore-savvy audience. The pilot was screened as a Halloween special.

After I Watched It… I was blown away by how kooky but cool the whole idea was, and how well the core cast meshed. I loved the art design too. The opening sequence, where Marilyn buys the house, made me smile, as did Lily and grandpa's arrival (cue rats, smoke and spiders). Fantastic television.

Hits: Deliciously macabre all-round! 

And Misses: Maybe the pacing? The program is such an unexpected style of small screen storytelling, there's no currently popular formula to follow (unlike a procedural).

Other Shows Worth Trying On For Size...

2. ARROW

Why Check It Out? Because superheroes are still all the rage. Speaking of rage, the theme of this show seems to be a slow burning rage that's almost consumed our hero. I love it. 
What's It About?  A billionaire playboy is found five years after he's presumed dead. The sole survivor of a shipwreck, he returns home to discover corruption and greed have taken over the city.  Deciding to protect the innocent by adopting an alternate persona, he becomes the vigilante known as Green Arrow.

After I Watched It… I realised there's often a jovial kind of humour to shows based on comic books, but this series plays it straight. I actually like the intensity. 

Hits: The flashbacks to the boating tragedy, and his time on the island. Beautifully woven in at just the right times. Rather than being jarring, they really contribute to the narrative.

And Misses: I'm not a Green Arrow comic fan, so I honestly can't compare the character mythology to this interpretation. I like the grittiness and brutality of the violence, it kind of blurs the line with the hero a little, bringing a darker edge to the tale. On a side note, just what is it with the girlfriend/love interest of a superhero hooking up with the best mate? 
Note: This is a CW show, so the budget's nowhere near as high as pilot programs on other networks. CW's programming also skews younger. These factors combined mean my expectations were not quite  as high as they might be for a big budget effort on other networks, or cable. But I was pleasantly surprised by the quality here. Big step forward from the 90210 remake, or the show about musical chairs(!).

3. LAST RESORT

Why Check It Out? Co-creator Shaun Ryan's had his finger in a lot of (tv) pies, including Chicago Code, Terriers, Lie To Me, and The Unit.

What's It About? The crew of a submarine are on the run (in a sense). When you're a patriot doing your duty and your country tries to kill you courtesy of internal political machinations, well, the psychological effects are going to be complex O_O Think combat-style pressure, to the nth degree. 

After I Watched It… I started recommending the show to anyone who would listen. This was easily the best premiere of the television season. The follow up episodes are not as strong; partly because not much can compete with the setting up of the original premise, and partly because the move to focus on 'emotional' storylines doesn't translate well. 

Hits: Worth watching, if it can avoid cancellation. The ensemble cast is incredible.

Misses: Sub-plots centred on the bar girl and the wife back home just make me sigh. I think they're supposed to provide, what, emotional fodder? Instead, the characters come across as overly simplistic and tiresome to watch. They don't compare to the intricacies of Autumn Reeser's character.

4. HUNTED

Why Check It Out? Ah, BBC, you send so many good shows out into the world. Major props!

What's It About? I thought it was about a spy who survives an assassination attempt, realises one of her team had to be involved, and (once recovered) returns to work to uncover the culprit. For me, the show lost a little gloss when it turned out the protagonist is not a spy. Instead, she works for a privatised company. Laugh if you like, but the thing is, I can get behind patriotism. Ditching your ethics for cold hard cash? Not so much.

After I Watched It… I took my hat off once again to the BBC. All the clever kind of espionage double crossing at the beginning is riveting. The lead role is written as a very intense, complex character, and while I think it's a bit of a stretch for George, she comes through.

Hits: That would be the entire cast. It's a solid ensemble cast, you're not sighing your way through any scenes. The camera work, the editing, the lighting in a lot of shots, every aspect is top-notch. The real mystery is what they're putting in the water over there?

And Misses: Melissa George's pouting. The actress's interpretation of a stern, serious spy face, includes a slight pout. Spy chic? If you created a drinking game and tossed back a shooter for every pout shot, you'd be wasted asap.

Good, But Probably Could Have/Should Have Been Better...

5. ELEMENTARY

Why Check It Out? Reinterpreting the iconic character of Sherlock Holmes, ie placing him in a modern day setting, worked so well for the Brits. 

What's It About? A genius-type who notices everything, works with the police (for free) when he gets out of rehab, assisted by a retired surgeon hired by his father to act as a sobriety companion.

After I Watched It… To be honest, the Sherlock character doesn't seem frighteningly clever to me. He seems more like a highly intelligent individual with a personality disorder. Kind of a stupid person's version/idea of genius.
Let's face it, the crew over on Castle solve these types of crimes quite regularly. If Sherlock's going to stand out from the crowd, the procedural aspect needs to be a lot more polished. Today's audiences are quite jaded in regards to the solving of homicide mysteries.

Hits: Lucy Liu. She's a great actress, and her character here is a very different take on Watson, a much more proactive interpretation of the famous sidekick.

And Misses: Elementary is just a standard procedural, with a little Sherlock wrapping. More similar to House, or The Mentalist. If you're going to cash in on the success of the BBC effort, you have to put in the budget to equal the quality of their product, and pay the same attention to detail (considering the topic at hand, that's almost a pun).

Still To Come...

6. PRIMEVAL: NEW WORLD

This is screening soon, so I'm taking a punt on it and putting it in the list as a potential fun show, (maybe) in the same way Warehouse 13 is entertaining. Why? Because I enjoy the occasional Canadian program, and because Amanda Tapping and Gillian Horvath are involved (think Sanctuary). I don't mind the leads either (guy from Eureka, girl from The Vampire Diaries). Will update this blog with impressions of the first episode when it airs later in the week. Since I've never seen the British original, maybe I'll check that out too...

Currently On The Fence...

7. BEAUTY AND THE BEAST

Why I'm Not Sold: Oh, for a lot of reasons. Mostly the script, and most notably the atrocious procedural aspect, which is highly cringeworthy. Not to mention, taking an old show and creating a modern interpretation rarely ends well. This is the network that tried 90210 and Melrose Place reboots, so you think they'd have learnt their lesson by now… Nostalgia is a powerful thing, so shows are judged a lot more harshly when they reference a past favourite to pull an audience. 
Most would argue this should be in the 'Avoid' category, but I really like Kristin Kreuk. She was a big factor behind the original success (ie the early years) of Smallville. And I do enjoy the stylised fight scenes. Fingers crossed it gets better? Maybe the production company could pull a Walking Dead with the writing staff? (And no, I don't mean eat or zombify- just replace!)

8. 666 PARK AVENUE

Why I'm Not Sold: This one comes down to personal taste. I enjoyed the opening few minutes (I'm always up for a series with a supernatural slant, I love seeing how writers work it into the narrative)... till I discovered Rachael Taylor has a lead role. I am not a fan of Rachel Taylor on the small screen, in the same kind of way I'm not a fan of Anne Hathaway on the big screen. Meaning, I can only sit through about five minutes of screen time before I have to leave the cinema, or turn off the telly.

Those Best Avoided…

9. MADE IN JERSEY

I was going to say, avoid this one like the plague, it's horribly oversimplified and has an oddly condescending tone (God-awful barely describes the clunky script effort), but it's already been cancelled. 

10. REVOLUTION

Don't even get me started. There are just too many logistical problems with the concept, and honestly, who wants to read a reall-y long rant? Nobody, I'm guessing. I love stories set in dystopian futures, but in the last few years it seems networks have conveniently ignored the fact this kind of programming requires solid conceptual script work. The premise here has a slapdash feel to it that I find truly aggravating. When you create a world, it has to be consistent, so the audience can maintain suspension of disbelief... Two words, people. Robert McKee. Google him!

"A Stitch In Time Saves The World"

Canadian series Continuum is currently saving face for the scifi television genre. 


I think the trailer gives you the general gist... a group of terrorists escaping execution use a device to travel back in time, and a female enforcement officer is caught in the shockwave. I think the plan was to jump back six years, but they accidentally end up travelling sixty. (Apparently, like me, maths isn't their forte).

So many friends recommended Continuum to me. As a result, I felt compelled to avoid it. Truth is, nothing's worse than loathing a program everyone's raving about. (Here's looking at you, Mad Men!). 

Finally, I gave in and resigned myself to another dose of entertainment alienation. (Seriously, this should be a real thing. Nothing creates conversational chasms like polar opposite opinions on a tv show).

Generally, I love science fiction, but genre classification doesn't always guarantee quality. (Who can forget the travesty that was Stargate Universe? I wish I could). The good news is, Continuum's now on my Top 5 of 2012 list. 

The show is entertaining for myriad reasons, but I'm going to try and encapsulate why it's worth watching in just half a dozen points! Very concise of me...

1. They Downplay The (Present Day) Procedural Slant.
Finding investers for tv scifi can be a bit tricky. Getting investors for a cop show is like shooting fish in a barrel. Hence, Continuum uses a procedural structure in the present day scenes. This also pulls in higher audience numbers because those who are wary of the futuristic aspects can still relate to the familiar 'cop show' elements.

The good news is, the cop angle is just a narrative prop, not the central focus. It allows the protagonist to move freely in the present day. Her partner and boss also humanise present day society in the protagonist's mind, anchoring her, in a sense... but without interfering with the core chase element between our hero and the terrorist group.

Thematically, the show is off the wall. Like the best scifi, there's so much social commentary going on. I would need pages to go into it... a taste? Think the growth of corporate monopolies and their spread beyond the private sector, how bureaucracy in government could be its downfall, morality versus ideological fanaticism, parental love, trust, the many facets of intense relationships between the sexes, the repercussions of free will, the ethical responsibilities attached to technological advancements... the list goes on! Good times for the writing team and a lot more interesting than a generic cop show.



2. The Black and White Themes Are Apparently Colour Blind
The program starts with the audience following Keira, our lead, a 'goodie' because her Protector job is the future version of a police detective. She was on the team that brought in the leader of the terrorist group Liber8. He engineered the assassination of twenty prominent world leaders. Unfortunately, the collateral damage included hundreds of thousands of innocent people.

As the story unfolds, we begin to realise the future is a little colder than we imagined. It doesn't seem dystopian at first... Keira's friends looks relatively happy. Life isn't that dissimilar to current first world society (albeit with more tech developments).

Then we start noticing the cracks. The loss of civil liberties, for one. The 1984 style surveillance. The indentured citizens, who sell decades of their lives to a corporation. The casual acceptance of human rights abuses. All part of the controlling society our 'hero' helps maintain.

So... I guess we're on the side of the terrorists, then?

No. They remain the primary "baddies" due to a disregard for the suffering they cause. People are disposable pawns, not valued individuals. There's a casual cruelty to their ethos, because their focus is so blinkered. All they see is the primary goal. So while some of their sentiments have merit, their actions are deplorable.

Which leaves the audience kind of for, kind of against... everyone? (I hate that you can no longer use the term shades of grey without infantile sniggering). To make things interesting, character perspectives undergo constant change when transported back to the present day (which has the added benefit of making shocking about-faces during the season appear entirely credible).

3. Relationships In The Show Never Quite Develop The Way You Expect Them To.
This is due in part to reveals throughout the season. Because we didn't get under the skin of the characters in the future-set opener, their myriad motivations weren't clear. 

At first, the audience is running on Keira's perspective, which is (trained to be) black and white. As we learn more about the actions of those in the future that lead to this scenario in the (new) past, then follow that up with character choices in the present day, everything begins to shift. 

One of my favourite unfolding relationships is between Keira and Kellog, who starts out as an (albeit oddball) baddy, and becomes one of the more interesting characters. Originally an escaped terrorist, through a series of flashback reveals we see how he ended up in this scenario. Thanks to unexpected happenings and resulting (present day) choices, his relationship with Keira changes drastically.

I also like that her relationship with her present day police partner Carlos is never as close as the audience expects it to be. I like that he is intuitive enough to realise something is wrong and that Keira remains unusually circumspect with him from the outset. It's not quite how opposite sex procedural partnerships onscreen generally unfold, which makes it interesting.

4. The Time Travel Aspect Doesn't Suck.

Ah, time travel. A writer's bane. Just ask anyone who ever worked on one of the Star Trek tv shows. PARADOXICAL pretty much sums it up. (And by paradoxical, read PAIN IN THE @#$).

Rather than clearly defining the rules of time travel, Continuum has the audience attempting to discover the boundaries and repercussions along with the characters. It's a nice touch. 

One episode sees the characters attempting to knock off their enemies ancestors in the present day. Theoretically it seems like it should work. If your grandparent dies, you should just fade, right? (Although in terms of narrative, it would be a mess. The entire series would become one long manhunt for nan 'n pop in the past).

This problem was overcome when one of the character's ancestors (in the present day) is killed... and, DRUM ROLL... nothing happens to the character who has travelled back from the future. He doesn't cease to exist, even though he technically will never be born now that his bloodline has been annihilated. 

That's right. It's a PARADOX.

Instead, there are very different repercussions. The logically possible 'what if?' domino effects of changing the past, come to nothing. Instead, future changes occur because of the emotional repercussions of this act. 

Watching a beloved grandmother die in front of him (albeit as a teenager), alters a character's behaviour drastically. So yes, killing an ancestor in the present day changes the future, but in an entirely unexpected way, one that has nothing to do with science or genetics. 

Nice writing.

5. The Lead Works.

Firstly, actress Rachel Nichols played Uhura's green roommate in the Star trek movie reboot. (For some reason I always get a kick out of this fact). She's great here because, frankly, she's a good actress. She's also quite solid for a female tv lead (and by solid, I mean there are whole parts of her body where her bones aren't sticking out). Basically, whenever she's onscreen, she owns it.

Nowadays, so many shows seem to have brilliant supporting cast and a wishy-washy lead. Continuum has a brilliant supporting cast and a great lead, so it's a double whammy. (Also very happy to see Victor Webster get a lead role. He was Phoebe's love interest in Charmed back in the day, and more recently, Beckett's love interest in Castle. A lead role is long overdue).

Frankly, I don't know what they're feeding them thespians over in Canada. Is it something in the water? The talent quotient in the acting community is phenomenal.

Back on point... the character of Keira seems like a real person. You see a number of reviewers online complaining about how contradictory some of her actions are, but that is what makes people human. She's traumatised, vulnerable and in shock. Basically, she's written 3D. (I also appreciate the flashbacks that deal with turning points in her life, they're very humanising).

Notably, this show is also one of the only times that tv writers have managed to make motherhood seem relevant, rather than annoying. (Can anyone say, The Good Wife?).

One of the plot problems is the conflict between the terrorists' need to change the future, and Keira's desire to both get back there AND keep it intact. Flashbacks show us the character Keira's marriage was a tad dodgy. Since her ethical perspective is starting to reluctantly shift (in that she's beginning to see problems with the political situation in the future), there needs to be an overwhelming drive to maintain that status quo, even though she's beginning to no longer believe in it... otherwise, the series would lose its primary conflict! Hence, the child.

Changing history could mean her son is never born. Now there's a serious moral and ethical internal struggle for the lead character as the series continues. Can she choose to help the world become a better place, if it simultaneously means ensuring her beloved only son ceases to exist?

6. Choices and Repercussions Rule The Roost.
Oh, does this show love to load up expected (and unexpected) consequences. 

Bringing characters back from the past and dropping them in the present is riveting, because these individuals know firsthand how small decisions in today's world have a snowball effect on the future. They're displaced, literally out of time, and see change as both friend and foe. 

They're also disconnected from the present day world because they see it as their past (even though they now live in it). They're not really emotionally attached to society in any way. Only our heroine Keira has formed some connections, but even those were made reluctantly, and more from necessity than choice.

The closest person to Keira in the present day is Alec, the teen tech genius who pretty much (kind of) rules the world in the future. His motivations (as an old man) remain a mystery. Bringing his (future) actions into question as the series unravels means even the one person who is Keira's present day safety net can't be completely trusted.

All the characters are living in a constant state of unimaginable pressure. The choices they make are never really flippant or off the cuff, because CONSEQUENCE is a leading theme here. A deceptively simple action can truly change the world. The whole concept is kind of mindboggling.

AND FINALLY, the season finale is pretty kickass.

Set In The City

New York, York! The Big Apple continues to be a popular setting for sitcoms. Why this particular city, you may ask? Doesn't America have loads of states buzzin' with inner city hubs?

Well, there's a lot of things about New York that make it a perfect setting for small screen sitcom storytelling. And frankly, a great place to live. Sure, I've never actually been to New York (or the US, if you wanna keep it real!), but I've watched A-LOT of television. I'm very down with the NY scene. Really. 4 SHIZZLE. 

Let's start with the people of this great US city that makes everyone think of fruit... 

POPULATION: ECCENTRIC. That's right. Apparently New York is the kook capital of America. Remember that weird kid from family gatherings? Chances are, he moved to the Big Apple after graduation. Seinfeld pretty much based his entire show on the 'specialness' of New York personalities. To some degree, this is true of a lot of NY-based sitcoms. Seems the streets are overflowing with sassy and strange characters. What's not to love, right?

To be frank, New Yorkers have attitude. (I rarely use that phrase because someone always yells "You're Frank?" Very HA HA. Really). They're brash, confident, and more than a litt-le self-absorbed. (For examples, see every-sitcom-ever-set-in-NY).  

But hey, who doesn't enjoy the company of the occasional, sort of borderline sociopath? (Well, more than occasional, when you look at sane-to-not-so-sane character ratios per New York based program.) Still, am I right, or am I right?

Really, most NY people are just very individual. 

Workers in the food and hospitality industry are not immune to this city-wide quirk, which is a bit of a downer. Service in the Big Apple can be more personality than hospitality. The infamous Soup Nazi is a prime example.

Years later, this continued tradition of less-than-best NY service is also celebrated in 2 Broke Girls (which is basically The Odd Couple, except one has cupcakes and the other has bling).

On the upside, if you're a foodie, here's some good news... People in New York eat a LOT. Yep, they like to chow down. Food, coffee, booze, always within grabbing distance. Either that, or they're about to go out and source (sauce?) some. I'm not sure why everyone's so ravenous (maybe it's all the walking?), but New York is definitely a city brimming with hungry people.

In terms of transportation, the subway is only really used by the poor and the weird. Probably because, for some unknown reason, underground transportation riles people up. In sitcoms, almost every subway outing involves some kind of confrontation/weird conversation with a slightly crazed commuter. From what I can tell, this is because doors regularly close on people, or refuse to open (which doesn't seem very efficient), and there are never enough seats. That kinda crap can turn people PRIMAL.

Basically, most New Yorkians try not to use it, also 'cause you can never be too sure what's roaming around down in those tunnels... (This one's not technically a sitcom, but still!).

On a random note, let's talk about interiors. Truth is, New Yorker's like to LOUNGE. They are obsessed with sofas slash couches (same dif). No matter how rich or poor, if you live in the Big Apple, you'll have a sofa sitting centre stage in your home/apartment/place of work. 

Walk in a door anywhere, and, bam! There it is. Thanks to Friends, we know even coffee shop's have sofas... Actually, the mayor's office in that old chestnut, Spin City, had one too.

In fact, an entire storyline in Friends was dedicated to Ross buying a couch (a piece of furniture that practically became a co-star during the episode, what with all the close-ups and screen time. Total scene stealer).

Amorous types will be happy to hear it's all good news on the lurrvve (ie getting laid) front. The dating options in New York are (almost) LIMITLESS, an endless whirlpool of available hotties. Didn't work out? Don't worry, there are thousands more fish in this cram-packed pond. Dating is a popular recreational past-time for Big Apple-ians, and as a result, some citizens have a (not that official) Phd in Picking Up.

Unfortunately, this can lead to questionable encounters. New York is a pretty diverse place. While there's undoubtedly a lot of opportunities to enjoy the multi-cultural experience, take care around (CARICATURED) Australians.

If fame is your thing, you'll be happy to hear celebrities are everywhere. Bathrooms, elevators, restaurants, the fake cafe you created in the hallway outside your apartment. Seriously, they pop up willy-nilly. I get the impression there are more celebrities in New York than there are in Los Angeles... just roaming the streets, wild and free. The Big Apple is their natural habitat. A protected reserve, if you will. Like a Fame Zoo. 

In summary, New York is both an excellent setting for sitcoms, and a cool place to live. I'm as enamoured with the Big Apple as a person can be (who's never actually been there). No possible way to be bored. Uh uh.

If you do visit the Big Apple as a tourist, consider getting all hardcore, and try something like this. I mean, if you're going to spend a day in the city, why not go 'street'?

A Dozen Doubles

If you've ever watched a television show, and thought, hey, wait a minute, I've seen that face before... chances are, you're right. Sometimes an actor portrays more than one character over the length of a series ('cause that's not CONFUSING).

This kind of de ja vu kamikaze casting can threaten suspension of disbelief (past breaking point, some might say). Still, production companies seem reluctant to let go of a good thing. 

I've listed twelves examples below that stood out for me over the years:*

*It should be noted that Star Trek (by which I mean all of the shows in the franchise) are guilty of this practice so often, it would take pages to list their repeat offences. I've also avoided mentioning procedural shows, since the crime solving format easily lends itself to regular dips in murky casting waters. Once a victim, not always a victim, right? By which I mean, last year's corpse could easily be next year's murderer. Or a family member. Or coworker. Or man who owns the local liquor store... You get my drift.

Jeff Kober in Buffy The Vampire Slayer as Rack and Zachary

First time around he kidnapped Buffy's mum and tried to kill Buffy, on her eighteenth birthday, no less! Kober came back as a black magic dealer who hooked Willow on the habit. Famously remembered for the line, "You taste like strawberries", delivered in a skin-crawling tone.
PRO: Frankly, Jeff Kober is hell creepy. (Onscreen I mean. Maybe he's uber-cuddly off-camera). Not a lot of actors exude this level of menace, so I can see why a show might want him back. And at least they waited a few years between appearances, unlike some I could name...
CON: I find Jeff Kober's voice really distinctive, so the reasoning, "he's a vamp so you can't see his face" didn't work for me. 

Rebecca Balding in Charmed as Elise and Aunt Jackie

I had to mention this casting example, because so many fans recognised Balding from her first, very small, appearance on the show. (And she wasn't even the main guest star in that particular episode). 

PRO: I always liked that Charmed had a couple of older female characters in the mix (ie Elise and Grams) who were respected by the young leads.

CON: The fact that she's such a memorable actress, people remembered her four years on from her first, single episode, teeny-tiny Charmed appearance. 

John Hillerman in Magnum P.I. as Higgins and Elmo

While Tom Selleck owned the series in the title role, Hillerman provided a perfect Odd Couple foil with his pompous portrayal of Higgins. Hillerman also gets to play three of Higgin's half-brothers during the series. I chose to mention the Texan character Elmo Ziller, because the actor is Texan (yes, he's faking that impeccable British accent the rest of the time). 

PRO: Sometimes it's fun to see a series regular enjoying themselves.

CON: Saying that, three times over is a tad indulgent...

Jane Horricks in Absolutely Fabulous as Bubbles and Katy Grin

Bubbles is the dense, fashion-saturated assistant to Edina, who won hearts with her crazy outfits and bizarre way of talking. While Bubbles remained a steadfast fan favourite, rumour has it Horricks grew tired of playing an adorable moron. Frankly, I can see where she's coming from, because there's no denying Bubbles was a heel short of a stilletto...

PRO: Jane Horricks is pretty hilarious. She plays a couple of other roles in the series, too. 

CON: Bubbles was funnier than all the other parts put together.

Karl Urban in Xena: Warrior Princess as Cupid and Julius Caesar

When it comes to importing acting talent, I get the impression NZ can't be reached by sea or air, because the Xena/Hercules cliche are almost as bad as the Star Trek mob. Yes, New Zealand is an island, but it's not like it's a deserted island. Production companies aren't stranded there! In Xena, Urban plays Cupid first, then Caesar. He also has another part 'cause, hey, why not, right?

PRO: Urban portrays a chilling Julius Caesar who's also bad-guy hot. You kind of like the flirtation he's got going with Xena, UNTIL he crucifies her. (Literally). Man, that cut deep. (Sorry, accidental pun). I won't make any reference to him nailing the part. (See? Total self-restraint). 

CON: Cupid? Really? I get that it meant KU with less clothes on, but bleaching his hair and having him shoot lovers and stuff... man. Was this really a strong casting effort? Saying that, I am glad they doubled (tripled) up on his appearances. No KU as Caesar would have been a loss for the show.

Catherine Bell in Jag as Mac and Diane

Bell first appeared in an early episode as Harm's girlfriend Diane. Since she'd already appeared on the show, this posed some continuity problems when they decided to make her a series regular... especially since Diane had been murdered. (Cue conundrum).

PRO: Rather than trying to slide this one past viewers, the writers had other characters on the show openly comment on the startling similarity between Harm's dead gf and his new workplace colleague, which did admittedly add another complex layer to the sexual tension.

CON: There's a difference between looking similar, and being the SAME PERSON.

Sherrilyn Fenn in Gilmore Girls as Anna and Sasha

Fenn played Luke's ex-girlfriend Anna, who (it turns out) had his child. The actress later rocks up as Jess's stepmother (relatively speaking), when he visits his father in Venice Beach.

PRO: Sherrilyn Fenn is a good actress. She's also very popular/iconic, thanks to Twin Peaks, so a Fenn appearance=media attention (x2 here).

CON: Gilmore Girls was one of those shows that ran into a number of continuity problems, partly due to its longevity. In-your-face repeat casting didn't help matters much. Even with a new 'do, Sherrilyn Fenn is too distinctive to pull this off. The sense of de ja vu was not helped by both characters being sassy, independent mums of quirky preteen bookworm daughters.

James Jordan in Veronica Mars as Tim and Lucky

First time around, he was a student who went to fight in Iraq when his family lost their fortune, and came back with PTSD. The character then works as the school janitor until he waves a (supposed) loaded gun around, and is shot dead. Next season, the actor plays a teaching assistant at university who turns out to be a murdering sociopath. 

PRO: They put him in a wig and glasses for the second role, and it was years before I realised it was the same actor.

CON: The wig and glasses were terrible, and I kept waiting for an appropriate storyline reveal, ie he was in witness protection or something. I didn't actually find this actor standout in either role, and was kind of dumbfounded the show brought him back. Strangely enough, there is one scene in Veronica Mars, a flashback to when Lucky was a rude rich kid, that sticks in my mind. With just a few sentences, the actor made a startling impact, so maybe he was just miscast in the other roles?

Dolly Wells in The IT Crowd as Paula and Miranda

This is an honorary mention, suggested to me by a friend. I haven't seen every episode, so I can't really comment on the double-up. Wells appears in one episode as dinner party guest Paula, and later, as Miranda. Hilariously cringeworthy, the Brits of The IT Crowd make their American counterparts on The Big Bang Theory look incredibly suave in comparison (and that's saying something).

PRO: Great use of comedic full-face bandaging. Anyone who claims they used facial recognition to identify Dolly Wells in both episodes (judging from the stills above) is quite probably full of it.

CON: Feel free to help me out here x

Christopher Heyerdahl in Sanctuary as Bigfoot and John Druitt

Sure, it's easier to double-up when one of the characters you play wears full special effects makeup, but still, a mannerism or movement often gives the game away. Heyerdahl is flawless. If I watched an episode right now, I would still be dumbfounded to think Heyerdahl's portraying both Bigfoot AND Druitt. My mind just can't quite wrap around the idea.

PRO: Today's technology allows for the characters to appear in scenes together regularly, which helps maintain audience cluelessness.

CON: Not quite as flawless in both roles as Combs (see below), but pretty close.

Sheryl Lee in Twin Peaks as Laura Palmer and Maddy

"She's dead. Wrapped in plastic." The image of Laura Palmer's dead body is synonymous with David Lynch's Twin Peaks, one of the kookiest television efforts of the nineties. Lee's character showing up less-than-alive in the first episode kicks off the series. Of course, things only get weirder (and more Lynchian) from there.

*RANDOM CONFESSION: As a teen, I owned The Secret Diary of Laura Palmer. Feel free to judge.

PRO: I love the idea of a doppelganger relative. This really added to the spooky factor (already sky-high, btw). Not that you can tell from these stills, but Laura's hair was more blonde, while in contrast, Maddy's all brunette. I respect the hairdye effort. 

CON: Lee's most memorable appearance in pop culture television history is as a pretty, plastic-wrapped corpse.

Jeffrey Combs in Star Trek: Deep Space Nine as Weyoun and Brunt

This is the only example I'm going to include from the Star Trek universe. Partly because despite being a Trekkie, I had no idea this was the same actor! Just incredible. (He also played some other parts, too).

PRO: Weyoun is one of my favourite characters. I'm not a fan of the Ferengi, but Brunt was always one of the least annoying incarnations. Obviously, that was because the actor playing both is a serious talent, truly embodying each part, hands down. He even manages to play the various cloned versions of Weyoun with recognisable similarities, yet subtle differences, every incarnation.

CON: Struggling here... Hats off to you, Mr. Combs.

Things are looking GRIMM.

Grimm is slightly off-kilter, and I'm not referring to the fairytale aspects. This show's got PROBLEMS, which is a pity, because with Supernatural winding down and Fringe set to finish, there's a definite cult tv gap up for grabs.

David Greenwalt is one of the series' creators. If the name sounds familiar, it's because you've seen it in the credits of Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Angel, Moonlight, Eureka and The X-Files.

Of course, this could be part of the problem. Mediocrity was not on my list of viewer expectations. Supernatural creatures, references to old myths, sassy sleuthing, yes. Kind of crappy television... not so much.

Turns out, David Greenwalt+Fairytales (& who isn't a fan of fairytales??) does not=AWESOME SAUCE.

I think this warrants a sad face.

:(

The frustrating thing is the concept of the show is pretty solid, in terms of a supernatural procedural, ie lots of cop shop talk and a weekly creature feature.

For those who haven't caught an episode, policeman Nick Burkhardt discovers he's from a bloodline known as Grimms, humans who can see the 'true' faces of creatures living amongst humanity's droves. Naturally, this causes complications in Nick's life, personally and professionally.

While his heritage is a bit bloodthirsty (bordering on ethnic cleansing, some might say) today's Grimm chooses to walk a milder path. He's more thoughtful and empathic, using his hereditary talents to bring justice to both worlds.

In theory, the main character should deliver. He's jolted from his comfortable life into a confusing, complex, supernatural world. He has to keep his Grimm skills a secret from those he loves, while trying to manage both sides of the equation (yes, like a superhero).

In reality, despite the great set-up, this show simply doesn't work.

I want to be bright rather than bitter, so I'm going to focus on one area in which the program excels (for now, that is. Will let you know when the rant's a'comin').

Visually, this series is top notch. Utterly beautiful cinematography (especially the lighting), with occasional saturated scenes that are very fairytale-esque. Quite stunning. Kudos to the crew.

Moving on to the conflicted hero. (Yes, taking off my compliment hat, a 1920's style cloche complete with silk flowers, putting on my critical cap, which is, frankly, quite dowdy).

The bald truth is, our protagonist is not impressive. The character is middling.The actor is middling, his storylines are middling, he's just... middling. Not good, not bad. Middling (no relation to Bette).

His (unofficial) sidekick saves Grimm from the dvd bargain bin. Silas Weir Mitchell plays Eddie Munroe, a creature known as a Blutbad. He's on a kind of twelve step monster program, preferring a vegetarian, (relatively) violence-free lifestyle. This guy's hilarious, and the only reason I've hung in there. He fixes clocks, too. (How randomly fairytale-esque is that?).

He's a bit like the incredible hulk, ie determined to remain non-violent, which kind of goes haywire sometimes. Possibly the funniest gory moment on the show was when he accidentally pulled off a baddies arm during a fist fight. My bad, indeed.

Remember that old chestnut, if you don't have anything good to say, don't say anything at all? (And why is that called a chestnut?) I'm applying this sentiment to the protagonist's best friend/police partner and his live-in girlfriend*.

Please note, this is not a reflection of the actor's talents. The characters are metaphors for a 'normal life', and that's how they're written. Clunky, two-dimensional, ANNOYING metaphors. Poor form from the script department. Tsk, tsk.

I think a large part of the show's problem is the CARICATURED 'idea' of a police detective. Exaggerated blokey walking, the posing, the terrible, terrible cliched comments coming out of the cop's mouths... so painful.

Dot-to-dot policing isn't helping either btw. Here's a prime example:

Nick: We've got a bunch of blood being illegally transported, and a dead kid missing seven pints.

Hank: Maybe we should check to see if there's a connection between the two.

Grimm, Season 1, Episode 10.

Really? They felt that this dialogue was NECESSARY?

I think it's time to take a note from The Walking Dead and overhaul the writing staff, because at this stage, cancellation can't be too far off.

To be fair, part of the problem may be that Grimm airs on a much more commercial network than a lot of other supernatural-themed programs. This means bigger audience numbers are demanded/expected. Perhaps they're trying to lay the standard procedural stuff on thick, so as not to lose viewers wary of the weird?

At this point, with a good chunk of season one over, it's safe to say the attempt at fusion has failed. Time to fish or cut bait.

Here's the trailer for the first episode. Promised so much, yet delivered so little. The Grimm brothers would be disappointed.

*On a random note- what is with the doppelganger casting of the female characters?? I get that sometimes guys have a type, but seriously, now may be a good time to try and move away from long red/brown hair parted in the middle and pale, pale skin.

I was watching an episode of the show with someone who's only a random viewer, and this conversation pretty much sums up the problem:

"Why is his girlfriend doing that?"

Oh, that's not his girlfriend, it's a guest star. She just looks like his girlfriend."

"Oh right, okay, yeah, I remember this one, I got her mixed up with the girlfriend before. She's the crazy one who used to go out with the clock guy."

"No, that was another actress, from a different episode. This crazy one wants to date the cop."

""Christ, why do they all look the same?"

(Good question, and one the casting department should probably be asking themselves).